MIB reports rise in claims from collisions involving uninsured drivers

12.00 | 30 August 2017 | | 9 comments

For the first time in more than a decade, the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) has reported an increase in the number of claims made following collisions involving uninsured drivers.

Since 2004, the MIB says the number of claims against uninsured drivers has reduced by more than 50% – from around 25,000 per year to around 11,000.

However, new figures published yesterday (29 August) show that in the last 12 months MIB has seen claims against uninsured drivers rise by almost 10%.

While the RAC says ‘the facts need to be confirmed’, it has described the figures as ‘a cause for concern’.

The MIB says a range of factors impact on the number of claims, including an increase in the number of people driving without insurance, increases in the number of vehicles and drivers on the roads, and the effectiveness of enforcement.

Ashton West OBE, chief executive of the MIB, said: “The number of claims handled by MIB each year highlights the devastating impact of uninsured driving on communities and families up and down the country.

“In the last year or so, for the first time in a decade or more, we are starting to see the trend of reduction actually change direction, and we have started to see it increase.

“We recognise the need to understand the increase in claims further so are currently undertaking a piece of work to explore what impact this could be having. Ultimately our message is the same as always – if you are driving without insurance you will get caught.”

Mark Godfrey, RAC insurance director, said: “Although the facts need to confirmed, there is a clear suggestion here that we might be seeing an increase in uninsured drivers on our roads – which, if true, would be a cause of concern.

“Industry figures from 2016 suggest there are around a million uninsured drivers on UK roads and that’s a figure we want to see come down, not go up.”


Category: General news.

 

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    Respectfully Bob you have misunderstood. Obviously all drivers should be insured – it’s the law – but I was pointing out that the mere act of being ‘uninsured’ does not instantly make such a driver accident prone – and vice versa – and for that reason, the headline is not that relevant to road safety.

    When I see an accident-prone driver on the roads (which is everyday) I don’t immediately presume them to be uninsured. If any of us on this forum decided to drive around uninsured, would we suddenly become any more accident prone than now? Highly unlikely – quite the opposite probably.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh: I am not quite sure that we would all like to drive on our roads filled with perpretually uninsured and unlawful drivers rather than lawfully insured drivers who sometimes speed.

    You make the presumption and assume that all uninsured drivers are careful which they are not and that all speeders are not careful, which some are. Statistics show that exceeding the speed limit is only the causation of some 6% of incidents.

    Pat: I would feel that an uninsured driver no matter what his personal circumstances may be is being somewhat disrespectful of the law and of the possible consequences of being involved in an incident or collision that may subsequently be found to be his fault. An incident where a person may be maimed or killed. Perhaps once again one may presume that being uninsured the MIB would come to his aid and pay out compensation on his behalf.


    Bob Craven Lancs
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I think there may be a false presumption that in a collision, if one driver was uninsured then it must have inevitably have been their fault. One could assume that someone forced to drive uninsured through circumstances would take extra special care not to have a collision.

    A few years ago on TV, there was a filmed collision between a traffic police car on a fast dash through a built-up area and a private car up ahead, where the officer’s speed made it impossible to avoid contact. Afterwards, to the camera, the officer’s ‘defence’ was that the other driver was uninsured anyway!

    I don’t like being driven by anyone, but if I was forced to make the choice I would choose the cautious uninsured driver, rather than your typical everyday speeding insured driver.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Not all uninsured drivers are reckless, careless or disrespectful. Some are just utterly poverty stricken and need a car to get to work where there is no public transport. I’ve been aware of one or two that have driven uninsured because they are stone cold broke, no access to credit, waiting until the next paycheck to pay the deposit for the car insurance. I’m not condoning uninsured drivers but please don’t lump everyone into the same category/attitude of mind.


    Pat, Wales
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh. I think that your answer lies in a person’s ‘State of Mind’. If a driver decides to drive uninusured then it goes someway to indicate his unlawful ‘State of Mind’. Not only would he disregard the law but more importantly he fails to consider the effects of his unlawful actions should he become involved in an acident or collision. A total disrespect for the law and the safety and wellbeing of others, and that of his family who would no doubt have to suffer the consequences of his actions, would go along way to determining his ‘State of Mind’.


    m.worthington Manchester
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    In Australia everyone pays towards compensating for uninsured drivers. The state own a company like an insurance company and all drivers pay into it by way of increased vehicle tax. Any person would be covered for injuries. When it comes down to the damage to a vehicle, a driver has to purchase their own insurance to cover that matter.

    Do you think that we should do the same over here and charge extra excise duty to give blanket cover insuring others from personal injury? I am sure that the insurance companies would like that one as it would mean that they no longer would have to pay out.

    Would it effect one’s premiums …knowiwing insurance companies I very much doubt it.


    Bob Craven Lancs
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Not sure this is really road safety/collision related, in itself. Is it being presumed that uninsured drivers are by nature, reckless and careless drivers and therefore more collision prone than the insured driver? If so, are they therefore disproportionately represented in collisions? Reckless and careless driving is not exclusive to uninsured drivers.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    In 2003 the MIB changed the way they accepted complaints. Under clause 5[1][A] of the 2003 Untraced Drivers Agreement they refused or rather declined to consider a claim for property damage where the offending vehicle was unidentified ie. no registration number. That being so its understandable that the numbers of complaints went down by some 50%. Think also about the amount of monies that they have saved over the best of the last decade and a half by that simple change in policy.

    Why have they now seen an increase in the numbers of claims which obviously do have a registration number. Thats simple, we now have video evidence and the regd. numbers of offending vehicles. Complainants are able to substantiate such information held on camera to the MIB for their consideration. So I would expect that many more claims will be made and probably substantiated and paid out.


    Bob Craven Lancs
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Relying on individual road users to provide their own third-party cover has a number of disadvantages, not least that it relies on the integrity of each and every road user for its effectiveness.

    An alternative to consider might be the provision of free (at point of need) personal injury and property damage cover to all those suffering loss due to a road traffic collision. That could guarantee compensation for anyone who suffers loss (regardless of who causes it, whether they stop or not, whether they are personally insured or not). This could be funded from a fuel duty increase perhaps, and provided by a not-for-profit agency.

    The overheads due to the inefficiencies of the current system would disappear overnight (so the cost of cover would be dramatically reduced) and the level of cover would be a guaranteed 100% (so no-one would be out of pocket as a result of a road collision). A win-win – what reasons are there not to do that?


    Charles, England
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close